[woollyone]

Darwin himself said that although he didn't have enough fossil evidence of the transition species to support evolution, he believed the that the fossil record would support it after enough digging. Now, years later, we have no fossil evidence of transition species...not ONE! Oh, yeah, there's that one alleged fossil of a dinosaur with partial feathers, but there is huge controversy over the authenticity of the find. Even if this fossil is a genuine mutation of nature, are we to believe that all of the theory of macro evolution is going to rest on one find? Darwin would disagree. There should be millions of such fossils, but there aren't.

Speaking of mutations, that is essentially the evolutionary nature of the theory, but can you cite one observable example of a mutation that was beneficial to a species? Science is the study of observable phenomena, but there is nothing to evolution that is observable, testable and repeatable in laboratory setting, therefore, by science's own terms, evolution is relegated to a mere theory.

Using the numbers "science has provided, if the evolutionary theory were correct about the number of years that man has been "evolving"(after allegedly existing for BILLIONS of years), the fossils of man would be over three feet thick; but where is this evidence? Non-existant, that's where.

So much for the "fact"...in truth, still a theory; a very weak theory that doesn't have the support of scientific evidence.

baa

[VadeRetro]

Oh, yeah, there's that one alleged fossil of a dinosaur with partial feathers, but there is huge controversy over the authenticity of the find.

Could I trouble you to go here (to the "Evidence for Dino-Bird Transition Thread") and see if you can spot which fossil species you consider to be "the one?"

To your larger point, there are over 200 vertebrate transitional fossils catalogued here.

How do you get "not ONE" out of that?